I prefer fog of war games, in fact that's all I play. There are a few things that should be not "fogged" though I think.

First, in the game log, I think you should be able to "see" the parts of the game that weren't "fogged" for you when they happened. Like when someone attacks you and takes your territory, in the game log you can't tell who hit what. Second, when someone attacks but doesn't conquer, it doesn't show up in the log at all.

The reasoning....Say there was a real war and I am New England, and the southern US attacks me but doesn't get through, I would know who attacked me and where. Similarly, if they attack me and conquer my territory, I knew who they were when they attacked me, why would I forget who it was and not know who did it?

I love the fog of war, but I think it goes way too far in those cases.

Last edited by JamesKer1 on Fri Jan 16, 2015 10:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Reason:Edited Title for Clarification

This has been broken off from the other Fog of War suggestion thread; I will describe the specifics using all the quotes from there.

Concise description:

Change a few aspects of Fog of War in order for it to be more fitting.

Specifics:

Thezzaruz wrote: I ... think it is stupid not to be told what territories you loose to other players. I understand that I can only see my own territories and those adjacent but that has to be checked when something happens and not when I view the log. As it is now you get situations when as soon as you loose a territory (that is isolated from the rest of your army) you "forget" that you ever held it and it comes up as you lost "?" to someone.

greenoaks wrote: i agree. i think it is stupid that my intelligence advisors (the log) know that player x conquered a territory from player y but they can not remember what the name of the territory i just lost was.

Ditocoaf wrote: This is something I have considered suggesting myself, actually. The following two things do not make sense:

1) You are player A. Player B owns territory 2, and you own neighboring territory 1. If player B attacks and conquers territory 1 from territory 2, why can not you see that battle in the feed ? You could easily find this information by watching the board all day, so if is s potential abusive info, then you could already get that info. But it would be much more convenient to me to be able to see which of my territories were attacked, in what order, when looking at the log the next day. As the commander of an army, how would I not know that I used to have a territory that was taken?

2) Player B attacks player C's territory and conquers it. Why can you see this? . I use this all the time to determine where my opponents are; and while it is certainly helpful, it is not really in keeping with the concept of Fog of War. As the commander of an army, how would I know that two distant enemy territories were having a battle (if I did not even know which they were)?

And finally, my favorite:

greenoaks wrote: in true FoW: -i should not know two distant armies i can not see fought. i should not know that player a is receiving a bonus if i can not see every territory required to get that bonus.i should know the names of any territory i just lost.i should know the names of territories that change hands if they border one of mine.

If too many people think that the current FoW is worth keeping, then perhaps this could be implemented as an option, but I have not seen anybody defending it yet.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

Information that you now can only see by watching the map will be availible by watching the log.

Information that you can not see by watching the map, will no longer be available in the log.

A more logical Fog of War will improve enjoyment of the game for many.

Strategy will be improved, because while now you can deduce the locations of your opponents by the log, with this you would actually be forced to fight blind, preparing for any instance.

Several actually. Should perhaps clean them up into voteable proposals.

wicked wrote:Not sure if it can be coded to hide information from some people and not others.

Well it has to do in some way now. At any given time 2 players could read the log and they would see different info.

For the "I'm loosing territories without knowing which" issue the only difference is whether the check for what you see is done when an event occurs or when you read the log. Shouldn't be impossible to sort tbh.

For the other issues it gets a bit more complicated perhaps. But I really think that if we should have a feature such as this it should be working properly.

Unrelated question. I haven't posted much here, how do people look at using abbreviations??? (like tbh, ofc and other common ones)

wicked wrote:Is there a clear/concise suggestion in there? I believe there was discussion about this when Fog first came out. Not sure if it can be coded to hide information from some people and not others.

The best, most concise phrasing (without any "why," just "what") is greenoaks:

In true FoW: -i should not know two distant armies i can not see fought. i should not know that player a is receiving a bonus if i can not see every territory required to get that bonus.i should know the names of any territory i just lost.i should know the names of territories that change hands if they border one of mine.

The second and the third problems above are probably the most blatantly strange.

Ditocoaf wrote:I hate bumping my own thread by double-posting... but I really think this should happen.

Instead of bumping, you might want to go research what was discussed when changed were last proposed to fog, which were soonafter it came out. You're not going to get an immediate ruling on this, so be patient and go check if it was already rejected in the the previous discussions. It's new enough feature that it's probably not on the rejected list even if it was rejected. And it might not have been outright rejected. I think I remmeber lack saying "let's wait and see". Anyway, get cozy with the search feature.

lozzini wrote:also needs to be changes with cards because you can see what 3 cards people play and it then says ; player x gets a bonus added to' which tells you they are/are not on those card territories

Cards are trickier - unless you split the cards into 3 logs. (For the above solution)

This would make FOW much more enjoyable (for me anyway).I was in favour of the FOW option, but dislike the amount of information available if you pay attention (I always know how many countries someone owns for instance, can tell where they are located based on any bonuses they are getting etc...).Revising that would be great if possible.

I've always been against the current FOW set-up because a player who is in front of the map all day to see what happens will do better than a person who does not. The former will have a better idea of who attacked where and what he or she lost, whereas the latter won't have a clue because of the log's incomplete information. I'm strictly against using time as an advantage or disadvantage in games. Why should the casual player who only checks the site once a day have a harder time with a game than people who might check up on the game four or five times before their next turn?

IIRC from the previous conversations about this, Lack wanted there to be partial information available to those who payed attention, akin to "gathering intelligence". Like I said, go back and search/read, as it's been suggested before.

Edit, here we go, took 1 minute...

lackattack wrote:The log gives hints, think of it as an intelligence report. The FoW games have elements of memory (from the map) and deduction (from the log). I've heard people say the log shows too much and too little. I don't think we can please everyone!

wicked wrote:IIRC from the previous conversations about this, Lack wanted there to be partial information available to those who payed attention, akin to "gathering intelligence". Like I said, go back and search/read, as it's been suggested before.

Edit, here we go, took 1 minute...

lackattack wrote:The log gives hints, think of it as an intelligence report. The FoW games have elements of memory (from the map) and deduction (from the log). I've heard people say the log shows too much and too little. I don't think we can please everyone!

It's not that it shows too much or too little, it's that it shows the wrong information. And the partial information that you can gain by watching is fine, but the illogical information you gain by reading the log is ridiculous. As greenoaks said, in true FoW: -i should not know two distant armies i can not see fought. i should not know that player a is receiving a bonus if i can not see every territory required to get that bonus.i should know the names of any territory i just lost.i should know the names of territories that change hands if they border one of mine.The top two pieces of information, written in the log, should not be there. If lack wants the bottom two to be rewards for being glued to your computer, then I guess that's fine. But the top two definitely should go.

i know that is what i said true FoW would be like but i really only want the third one. to know what territory i just lost. i can understand the log being there to guide and assist those who pay attention but on most maps my initial forces are randomly dropped and not recorded anywhere.

yes i know i can visit every game before it is my first turn and write down every territory i have just in case i am attacked prior to that first turn of mine. do you really want players to be doing that. i suppose an alternative would be if the log listed the starting territories for each player like it does now, showing the names for me, ? for what others have.

Ditocoaf wrote:This has been broken off from the other Fog of War suggestion thread; I will describe the specifics using all the quotes from there.

Concise description:

Change a few aspects of Fog of War in order for it to be more fitting.

Specifics:

Thezzaruz wrote: I ... think it is stupid not to be told what territories you loose to other players. I understand that I can only see my own territories and those adjacent but that has to be checked when something happens and not when I view the log. As it is now you get situations when as soon as you loose a territory (that is isolated from the rest of your army) you "forget" that you ever held it and it comes up as you lost "?" to someone.

greenoaks wrote: i agree. i think it is stupid that my intelligence advisors (the log) know that player x conquered a territory from player y but they can not remember what the name of the territory i just lost was.

Ditocoaf wrote: This is something I have considered suggesting myself, actually. The following two things do not make sense:

1) You are player A. Player B owns territory 2, and you own neighboring territory 1. If player B attacks and conquers territory 1 from territory 2, why can not you see that battle in the feed ? You could easily find this information by watching the board all day, so if is s potential abusive info, then you could already get that info. But it would be much more convenient to me to be able to see which of my territories were attacked, in what order, when looking at the log the next day. As the commander of an army, how would I not know that I used to have a territory that was taken?

2) Player B attacks player C's territory and conquers it. Why can you see this? . I use this all the time to determine where my opponents are; and while it is certainly helpful, it is not really in keeping with the concept of Fog of War. As the commander of an army, how would I know that two distant enemy territories were having a battle (if I did not even know which they were)?

And finally, my favorite:

greenoaks wrote: in true FoW: -i should not know two distant armies i can not see fought. i should not know that player a is receiving a bonus if i can not see every territory required to get that bonus.i should know the names of any territory i just lost.i should know the names of territories that change hands if they border one of mine.

If too many people think that the current FoW is worth keeping, then perhaps this could be implemented as an option, but I have not seen anybody defending it yet.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

Information that you now can only see by watching the map will be availible by watching the log.

Information that you can not see by watching the map, will no longer be available in the log.

A more logical Fog of War will improve enjoyment of the game for many.

Strategy will be improved, because while now you can deduce the locations of your opponents by the log, with this you would actually be forced to fight blind, preparing for any instance.

I'm okay with the current fog-of-war. If we take what greenoaks said about the true FoW, the FoW right now would be an extended version. Maybe they should just make another FoW option that follows greenoaks' true FoW.

greenoaks wrote:i know that is what i said true FoW would be like but i really only want the third one. to know what territory i just lost.

Yea I fully agree, this is the important one.

lackattack wrote:The log gives hints, think of it as an intelligence report. The FoW games have elements of memory (from the map) and deduction (from the log). I've heard people say the log shows too much and too little. I don't think we can please everyone!

But that's just BS. Expecting people to log on loads of times a day just to get info on what territories they hold/have lost is just plain stupid.Oh well, I don't play FoW games atm so it's not like I'll suddenly will miss them.

meh, not really. The changes would put some things into the log*, and take some things out. So it'd just be different. (*i.e., if I started with a territory, but lost it before my first look at the map, I'll be able to see what it was.)

wicked wrote:IIRC from the previous conversations about this, Lack wanted there to be partial information available to those who payed attention, akin to "gathering intelligence". Like I said, go back and search/read, as it's been suggested before.

I realize that this has been discussed before, with the outcome of, "well, let's just like what we have, at least for now." I don't really think it's been suggested in quite this way before, though--and even so, I'd still like to make another push for it.

I would define 'success' here, as just getting it tentatively added to the very end of lack's incredibly long to-do list. Just so long as it's something that 'will' be done in the indefinite future; I'm not impatient.

indeed even getting in at the end of an absurdly long line is appreciated... greenoaks new FOW makes sense to me... if we dont want to kill the current one we can just add it as an option...those who want to play it can and so on...just like assassin vs terminate vs standard lol...oh and by the way using the official suggestion form might help...

on a completely off topic note: IN thread may be receiving a new post from cicero sometime tomorrow or the next day ditocoaf